Digital cameras, It isn't all about Mega Pixels!

[Big Bad Wulff]

I don't know. I can see a LOT more water beads on the 10 than the 6.

Would have been a better "test" if it were of the exact same set up.

[nighthawk]

I am quite please that all of you took the time to respond and the responses show a great knowledge. That's what I love about this site. The willingness to share enriches all of you in ways that money cannot buy!

Another great point was brought up that more mega pixels generate more heat in the ccd sensor. That means more noise and a longer turn around time from shot to shot if you are doing long exposures or bulb exposures.

[nighthawk]

I should point out that the purpose of this thread is not to promote the sale of my camera! Plain and simple it is intended to show that a person does not have to plunk down mega dollars for huge mega pixels to get high quality results from their gear.

Did not intend it to be a sales pitch.

[flyfisherjoe]

Megapixels is only a measurement of size, not quality. Just as a 35mm negative in a quality film camera (i.e. Nikon) can produce a much higher quality picture when using a high quality lens and high quality film when compared to a cheap box camera with cheap, but larger, 2 1/4 film and a crappy lens. Even with the same film the the 35mmm will be better.

However, if you take a high quality film camera using 2 1/4 film (i.e Hasselblad) with a high quality lens and film you will get a high quality that can be printed to a much larger size than the 35mm negative.

So a higher number of megapixels in a camera that is equal quality (lens, electronics, etc.) with a camera of lesser magapixels, has the advantage of increasing the possible size of the print and maintaining the quality in the larger print.

More megapixels = not better, just bigger.

[Marco]

Personally, subject matter is much more important to me than the "quality" of a photograph. A "lousy photo is still a lousy photo no matter what lens or megapixels are involved. A million dollar camera does NOT make great photographs, the photographer is left with that task.

Mark

[Gemrod]

I have known from past posts that you are going to sell the camera someday. You don't need to advertise and you know it. We all know you are not setting us up to sell it. You stated a long time ago you were going to sell it. I and a bunch of others are patiently waiting to see it on the for sale board. Hope I win the derby. You aren't going to have any trouble selling it. In fact had you not mentioned it on this thread....I was going to post and ask when it was going to be up for sale.

Just waiting.....

Jimbo

"if you would like to speak to an illegal alien....please press 1"

[troutgeek]

I have to say that I totally agree with you, but I'm not sure your example is an apples to apples situation. I can't get the EXIF info for the first picture, but for the second picture the aperture is 2.8. The DOF/Bokeh is starting to come out, making the container a bit fuzzier, etc... Makes the picture seem less sharp in certain areas.

I'm going to guess that the first picture was somewhere in the 7.0 aperture vacinity.

However, I could just be full of beans.

[Steve Molcsan]

This is great information:

Eric have you heard of this location?
Eric's Photo Corner

[Uncle Barry]

Good afternoon all.

Kind regards,
UB

[JohnScott]

I once read that Ansel Adams did his best work in the darkroom.

In the digital age, it ain't so dark !!

John

P.S. But you do have to start with a good subject, good glass and enough pixels to make it happen.